TITLE V : PRESCRIPTION

CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Art. 1106. By prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through
the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law.
In the same way, rights and actions are lost by prescription. (1930a)

SOURCE: Arturo M. Tolentino, Ph. B., D.C.L.

Two Kinds
1. Acquisitive Prescription or Adverse
Possession and Usucapcion

Acquisition of ownership and other real

rights through the lapse of time.
Acquisition of a right by the lapse of time.
*Usucapcion is a method of ownership or
right to ownership on the basis of
possession of it for a prescribed period.
Example: right to a real property or to an
easement (right to cross or otherwise use
someone elses land for a qualified purpose)
by prescription

a. Basis

Assertion of the usurper of an adverse right

for such a long time, uncontested by the
owner of the right, as to give rise to the
presumption that the latter has given up
such right in favor of the former.

b. Effect

Whatever is paid or delivered due to the

promptings of conscience (equally strong
and incessant) cannot be recovered.

*Tacit Renunciation of Prescription

(Art. 1112)

c. Retroactivity

The voluntary return of the property, even

if it is not viewed as a performance of a
natural obligation.
It is retroactive.

Once the period is completed, the new

owner is considered as having acquired the
thing or right from the moment the period
began to run.
d. As a Defense

If the defense is that the occupant of

property is the absolute owner because of
acquisitive prescription, the plea of
ownership would be sufficient to justify
proof thereof, even if there is no allegation
of prescription of action.

2. Extinctive Prescription or
Limitation of Actions

Loss of a right of action by the lapse of time.

a. Basis

Based on the probability, born of

experience, that the alleged right which
accrued in the distant past never existed or
has already been extinguished; or, if it
exists, the inconvenience caused by the
lapse of time should be borne by the party
negligent in the assertion of his right.

b. Purpose of the Law

Protect the diligent and vigilant, not the

person who sleeps on his rights, forgetting
them and taking no trouble of exercising
them one way or another to show that he
truly has such rights.

c. As a Defense

It must be expressly relied upon in the

pleadings.
It cannot be availed of, unless it is specially
pleaded in the answer; and it must be
proved or established with the same degree
of certainty as any essential allegation in the
civil action.
When the plaintiffs own allegation show
clearly that the action has prescribed, the
Court may dismiss the complaint on the
ground of prescription.

Must be pleaded before the trial.

If before trial a party has NO means of
knowing that the opponents claim is
barred, it may be pleaded later as soon as
the true nature of the claim is discovered.
Error in Court

Permitting proof of prescription, which is

not defensively pleaded and the proof is
objected to.

General Rules:
Prescription, whether, acquisitive or extinctive, is based on negligence, carelessness, or
presumed abandonment by the owner of a right, whether patrimonial or remedial.

SOURCE: Justice Edgardo L. Paras

Prescription

a. Characteristics of Possession
(CPuPeUA)

Mode of acquiring or losing ownership and

other real rights through the lapse of time in
the manner and under the conditions laid
down by law.
In the concept of an owner
Public
Peaceful
Uninterrupted (Arts. 1106, 1118, Civil Code)
Adverse (Claimant must clearly, definitely,
unequivocally notify the owner of the
intention to avert ownership in himself.
Director of Lands v. Abiertas, CA-GR91-R,
March 13, 1947, 44 O.G. 923 and Clendenin
v. Clendenin, 181 N.C. 465)

b. Proof is needed

All the essential ingredients, particularly the

period of time must be shown clearly
because it is an extraordinary mode of
acquiring ownership. (Boyo v. Makabenta,
CA-GR 7941-R, Nov.24, 1952)

c. Reasons or Bases
(EFCP)
i. Economic Necessity

Ensures the stability of the property rights.

Ex. Attempts of humble people to have
disposable lands they have been tilling for
generations titled in their names should be
viewed as a matter of policy, which should
be encouraged; and with an understanding
attitude. (Director of Lands, et.al. v.
Funtillar, et.al., GR 68533, May 23, 1986)

ii. Freedom from Judicial

Harrassment

Occasioned by claims without basis

iii. Convenience in procedural

matters

In certain instances, juridical proof is

dispensed with.

iv. Presumed abandonment or

waiver

In view of the owners indifference or

inaction.

d. Classification
i. As to whether rights are
acquired or lost
1. Acquisitive Prescription
a. Ordinary Prescription
b. Extraordinary Prescription

Prescription of ownership and other real

rights.
Acquisition
Adverse possession leading to the
acquisition of properties and other real
rights.

2. Extinctive Prescription
Liberatory Prescription
Prescription of Actions
Statute of Limitations

Lost rights and actions through the lapse of

time.
Also pertains to real and personal rights.
Right to actions

ii. As to the object or subject

matter
1. Prescription of Property
a. Prescription of real
Property

b. Prescription of personal
rights
2. Prescription of Rights
e. General Rule

Prescription shall begin to run from the day

of the commission of the violation of law.
Does not run in favor of a co-heir or coowner as long as he expressly or impliedly
recognizes the co-ownership. (David v.
Bandin, G.R. 48322, April 8, 1987)

f. Exceptions

The delay can be justifiably explained (as

when there is a search for evidence).
If the day of the commission of crime is not
known, prescription shall run from the
discovery and the institution of judicial
proceeding for its investigation and
punishment. (Citibank N.A. v. Tanco
Gabaldon, 705 SCRA 172)
While implied or constructive trust
prescribes in ten years, the rule does not
apply where a fiduciary relation exists and
the trustee recognizes the trust. (David v.
Bandin, G.R. 48322, April 8, 1987)

NOTA BENE
(Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of
Justice, 571 SCRA 540 (2008)

Laches or Estoppel by Laches

a. Definition

SC expressly ruled that Act 3326 is the

applicable law to the offenses under special
laws which do not provide their own
prescriptive period.

Unreasonable delay in the bringing of a

cause of action before the courts of justice.
Also considered as negligence or omission
for an unreasonable delay or unexplained
length of time in bringing a cause of action
before the courts of justice.

By Supreme Court
(Cristobal v. Melchor, 78 SCRA 175)

b. Application

Laches is a failure or neglect, for an

unreasonable and unexplained length of
time, to do that which, by exercising due
diligence, could or should have been done
earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert
a right within a reasonable time, warranting
a presumption that the party entitled
thereto either has abandoned it or declined
to assert it. However, courts will not be
bound by strictures of the statute of
limitations or laches when manifest wrong
or injuries would result thereby.
While an action has not yet prescribed, it
may no longer be brought to court because
of laches.

General Rule

If an action prescribes in ten years, it should

be brought to court as soon as possible,
without waiting for eight or nine years.

Exception

The delay can be justifiably explained (as

when there is a search for evidence).
It is not strictly applied between near
relatives, and the fact that parties are
connected by ties of blood (consanguinity)
or marriage (affinity) tends to excuse an
otherwise unreasonable delay. (Gallardo v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. 67742,
Oct. 29, 1987)
A delay under the existence of a confidential
relationship between the parties is not
strictly regarded compared to parties who
are strangers to each other. (Gallardo v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. 67742,
Oct. 29, 1987)

Principle

Creation of equity.

Rationale

Applied not really to penalize those who

neglect or sleep upon ones rights, but
rather avoid recognizing a right when to do

so would result in a clearly inequitable

situation.
If a person fails to act as soon as possible in
vindication of an alleged right, it is possible
that the right does not really exist.

Jurisprudence
a. Jackwell Parking Systems Corp. F: Prosecutor facts to seasonably file the
v. Lidua, Sr.
information.
706 SCRA 724
I: Can such circumstance result in the
dismissal of the case against the private
respondent?
H: Yes, unfortunately.
Notes

In resolving the matter of prescription of the

offense charge, the following factors are
considered:
1. Period of prescription for the
offense charged
2. Time the period of prescription
starts to run
3. Time the prescriptive period was
interrupted

b. Quirino Mateo & Matias v. F: The land registered using Torrens system
Dorotea Diaz , et. Al.
under Claro Mateo has been registered with
G.R. 137305, January 17, 2002
new titles, which led the heirs to assert their
rights and take steps.
I: Whether laches and prescription are
applicable in derogation of the title under
the registered owner, Claro Mateo.
H: No.
Notes

Laches and Prescription cannot be applied

to registered land covered by the Torrens
system.
Heirs of the registered owner are not
estopped from claiming their fathers
property, since they merely stepped into
the shoes of the previous owners.
Prescription is unavailing not only against

the registered owner, but also against the

hereditary successors because the latter
merely step into the shoes of the decedent
by operation of law and are merely the
continuation in the personality of their
predecessor-in-interest. (Teofila de Guinoo
v. CA [97 Phil. 235]; and Gil Atun v. Eusebio
Nuez [97 Phil. 762]
The title can only be cancelled only if there
is a competent proof that he had
transferred his rights over the parcel of land
to another party, otherwise title would pass
to his heirs only by testate or intestate
succession.
c. Far East Bank & Trust Co. v. F: Respondent deposited her savings with
Estrella O. Querimit
petitioner-bank, which she did not
G.R. 148582, January 16, 2002
withdraw even after the maturity date
hoping to accrue interest. Petitioner failed
to prove that it had already paid the
respondent, bearer, and lawful holder of
subject CDs (Certificate of Deposit).
I: Would it be unjust not to allow the
respondent to recover her savings which
she deposited to the petitioner bank?
H: Yes. Petitioner failed to exercise the
degree of diligence required by the nature
of its business. (Art. 1173)
Notes

The business of banks is impressed with

public interest, the degree of diligence
required of banks is more than that of a
good father of the family or of an ordinary
business firm.
A bank is under obligation to treat accounts
of its depositors with meticulous care
whether such accounts consist only of a few
hundred pesos or of millions of pesos.
Responsibility arising from negligence in the
performance of every kind of obligation is
demandable. (Prudential Bank v. CA, 328
SCRA 264 [2000])

Petitioner failed to prove payment of the

subject CDs issued to respondent and,
therefore, remains liable for the value of the
dollar deposits indicated thereon with
accrued interest.
The equitable principle of laches is not
sufficient to defeat the rights of respondent
over the subject CDs. Laches is the failure or
neglect, for an unreasonable length of time,
to do that which, by exercising due
diligence, could or should have been done
earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert
a right within a reasonable time, warranting
a presumption that the party entitled to
assert it either has abandoned it or declined
to assert it. (Felizardo v. Fernandez, G.R.
137509, Aug. 15, 2001)
Respondent is entitled to the moral
damages because of the mental anguish and
humiliation she suffered as a result of the
wrongly refusal of petitioner to pay her even
after she had delivered the CDs.

*Statutory laws written laws enacted by legislative bodies, which varies.

* Act 3326 An Act To Establish Periods Of Prescription For Violations Penalized By
Special Acts And Municipal Ordinances And To Provide When Prescription Shall Begin To
Run (1 (fine or <1mo.), 4(>1mo. to <2) , 8 (2 to <6), 12 (6yrs. and up))
*The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or
employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by
prescription, laches, or estoppel. (Sec. 15, Art. XI, The 1987 Philippine Constitution)
*The filing of the complaint or information in the office of the public prosecutor for
purposes of the preliminary investigation interrupts the period of prescription,
irrespective of whether the offense charged is punishable by the Revised Penal Code or
by a special law. (Disini v. Sandiganbayan, 705 SCRA 459)
*Jurisprudence hold that prescription and laches could not apply to registered land
covered by Torrens system. (Bishop v. CA, 208 SCRA 636 [1992]; and St. Peter Memorial
Park, Inc. v. Cleofas, supra)
*Certificate of Deposit (CD) written acknowledgement by a bank or banker of the receipt
of a sum of money on deposit which the bank or banker promises to pay to the depositor,
to the order of the depositor, or to some other person or his order, whereby the relation of
debtor and creditor between the bank and the depositor is created. Principles governing

other types of bank deposits are applicable to CDs (10 AM Juri 2d Sec. 455), as are the rules
governing promissory notes when they contain an unconditional promise to pay a sum of
certain money absolutely. (Ibid., Sec. 457)

PRESCRIPTION
- Concerned with the FACT of delay (Mapa
III v. Guanzon, 77 SCRA 387)

LACHES
- Deals with the EFFECT of delay or
unreasonable delay (Mapa III v. Guanzon,
77 SCRA 387)

- It is a matter of time or based on fixed

time. (Narciso Buenaventura & Maria - An action to recover registered land
Buenaventura v. CA & Manotok Realty
covered by the Torrens System may not
Inc., G.R. 50837, Dec. 28, 1992)
be barred by laches; and neither can
laches be set up to resist the enforcement
- It is statutory and applies at law. (Narciso
of an imprescriptible legal right. (Akang v.
Buenaventura & Maria Buenaventura v.
Mun. of Isulab, Sultan Kudarat Province,
CA & Manotok Realty Inc., G.R. 50837,
699 SCRA 745)
Dec. 28, 1992)
- Laches is a recourse in equity which is
- Does not run against the State, especially
applied only in the absence of a statutory
because the recovery of unlawfully
law. (Citibank N.A. v. Tanco Gabaldron,
acquired properties has become a State
765 SCRA 172; and Phil. Carpet
policy. (Republic v. Animas, 56 SCRA 871)
Manufacturing Corp. v. Tagyaman, 712
SCRA 489)
- Prescription must yield to the higher
interest of justice. (Aldovino v. Alunan III, - Principally a doctrine of equity, which is
49 SCAD 340)
applied to avoid recognizing a right when
to do so would result in a clearly
- While implied or constructive trust
inequitable situation or in an injustice.
prescribes in 10 years, the rule does not
(Secretary of Public Works & Highways v.
apply where a fiduciary relation exists and
Tecson, 700 SCRA 243)
the trustee recognizes the trust. (David v.
Bandin, G.R. 48322, April 8, 1987)
- Independent
of
prescription
and
principally a question of inequity of
permitting a claim to be enforced,
provided that this inequity being founded
on the same change in the condition of the
property or the relation of the parties.
(Narciso
Buenaventura
&
Maria
Buenaventura v. CA & Manotok Realty
Inc., G.R. 50837, Dec. 28, 1992)

- Laches may not prevail against a specific

provision of law, since equity, which has
been defined as justice outside legality
is applied in the obscene and not against
statutory law or rules of procedure.
(Causapin v. CA, 233 SCRA 615 [1994])
- There is no absolute rule as to what
constitute laches or staleness of demand;
each case is to be determined according
to its particular circumstances. The
question of laches is addressed to the
sound discretion of the court and, being
an equitable doctrine, its application is
controlled by equitable considerations. It
cannot be used to defeat justice or
perpetrate fraud and injustice. Courts will
not be guided or bound strictly by the
Statute of Limitations or the doctrine of
laches when to do so manifest wrong or
injustice would result. (Rosales v. CA, G.R.
137566, Feb. 28, 2001)